There are 2 types of debate.

Context. My thoughts after a short debate on facebook last night.

The first type is more akin to a discussion. We have identified the issues and we sit down to discuss what the cause of the problems are. We apply reasoning and provide our evidence to support it. We can disagree as to what the solution is and so we debate. I believe this is the true lesson from chess. It is the search for the truth of the subject matter.

And then we have the other type of debate where we must win at all cost. So we use name calling to divert attention, we invent lies, we purposely misinterpret. We deny evidence and we apply emotive manipulations rather than appeal to the intellect. This is called defensive argumentation. We deny all evidence that refutes what we want to be the truth. This is not chess.

Let me try to explain why. The first type of debate helps us to find solutions and the second type deny all solutions. We cannot improve because we cannot solve anything. Now some may mistakenly think that is chess (win/lose) but it is not. Lets look more carefully.

Chess is really a team game. We need the Associations to work properly. We need good managers, good trainers and good coaches. We need the first type of debate so that we can give the best to our players when they get to the table. We practice hard with each other in Malaysia so that we can excel overseas against our real competitors. That is where the real challenge is. That is where we play real chess. That is the true measure of whether we are improving or NOT.

If we can only use defensive argumentations and we defend the super glaring faults then we are not going to get anywhere good soon. The second type of arguments has also sometimes been described as denial or escapism.

Note: The issues brought up on my blog are not invented by me. These are the same issues discussed by parents and players in every single gathering. Perhaps the difference is that I talk about it in the open. I am not comfortable huddling in corridors and whispering. I prefer that we talk about it in the open and identify solutions that can take us forward. We are not discussing sensitive issues here. We are discussing chess. If we cannot even say out loud that the officials are not doing their jobs, that the players are not properly trained and that there are certain people trying to use the backdoors, then we are truly lost.

Chess is a sport. These discussions are held everywhere in sports. Sports is supposed to be apolitical. It's about excellence and healthy competition isn't it? Look at our TV ads for the Olympics. What about the current Euro football craze? What is the message there? We can only improve if we can identify and work on our weaknesses. And we must apply reasoning and healthy debate to do that. Can you not see that?